Red Hat controversy

[David Spoelstra]

Great insights Bernie! Thanks.
-David

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 10:29 PM Bernie Hoefer <LUG-Member at themoreiknow.info>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> (Full disclosure for anybody who did not already know:  I am an employee
> of Red Hat.  ***But I do not speak for it.  The below are my own, personal
> opinions.***)
>
> On 2023-07-02 02:20 UTC-05:00, David Spoelstra wrote:
> ===
> > Three interesting articles about what Red Hat is doing:
> ===
>
> Hi, David!  I was wondering if/when this topic would come up in our
> group!  :-)
>
> For those who do not know what David is talking about, Red Hat will cease
> releasing RHEL source to git.centos.org:
>
>   Furthering The Evolution Of CentOS Stream
>   June 21, 2023
>   https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream
>
>
> ===
> > 4 Ways Red Hat's Source Code Restrictions Affect Other Distros:
> >
> https://www.makeuseof.com/ways-red-hat-source-code-restrictions-affect-other-distros/
> ===
>
> Thanks for sharing that article, David.  Some of my personal thoughts on
> what it contains:
>
> =+=+=+
> } The code used in CentOS Stream is unfortunately unstable and
> } actively in development, but it will provide valuable insight for
> } third-party developers going forward.
> =+=+=+
>
> As we learned during Peter Larsen's April 2023 CINLUG talk, CentOS is not
> "unstable".  Yes, it is a development stream of the next RHEL point
> release, but it not unstable.
>
>   Before a package is formally introduced into CentOS
>   Stream, it undergoes a battery of tests and checks — both
>   automated and manual — to ensure it meets the stringent
>   standards for inclusion in RHEL. Updates posted to Stream
>   are identical to those posted to the unreleased minor
>   version of RHEL. The aim? For CentOS Stream to be as
>   fundamentally stable as RHEL itself.[1]
>
> [1] https://blog.centos.org/2021/12/introducing-centos-stream-9/
>
>
> =+=+=+
> } With community goodwill rapidly deteriorating, it seems that many
> } developers are contemplating the idea of separating their work from
> } RHEL entirely.
> =+=+=+
>
> Red Hat's announcement has caused controversy -- and the dust has yet to
> settle.  Loss of the community's goodwill is a significant concern.
> However, I'm hearing of more people who had one opinion when the change was
> 1st announced, but have now shifted their view, or softened it.  So
> "rapidly deteriorating" is a bit of an exaggeration, in my opinion.
>
> I've heard that this podcast explains Red Hat's position very well:
>
>   Ask Noah Show 343 | Red Hat's Source Code with Mike McGrath
>   June 27th, 2023
>   https://podcast.asknoahshow.com/343
>
>
> =+=+=+
> } Just as the discontinuation of free RHEL and CentOS caused
> } controversy
> =+=+=+
>
> Huh?  I wonder if the author confused Red Hat's 2004 discontinuation of
> Red Hat Linux (RHL) in favor of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in making
> that statement.
>
> Otherwise, the author is wrong.  Red Hat (still) offers these for free:
>
> + Red Hat Developer Subscription For Individuals
>
> + Red Hat Developer Subscription For Teams
>
> + Red Hat Universal Base Image (UBI)
>
>
> ===
> > ROCKY STRIKES BACK AT RED HAT:
> > https://hackaday.com/2023/06/30/rocky-strikes-back-at-red-hat/
> ===
>
> This article links to Rocky Linux's press release where they claim to have
> found a way around Red Hat's license agreement by either using the UBI or
> using RHEL images provided by cloud providers.
>
> Using the UBI may, for now, provide Rocky Linux a way to end run around
> Red Hat's license agreement.  I state this because it does appear that I
> can pull down the UBI from hub.docker.com without agreeing to anything.
> The UBI is a container running a stripped-down version of RHEL.
>
> Thus, my *guess* is that Red Hat will limit source code downloads through
> the UBI to only the software provided in the UBI -- not the source code for
> the tens of thousands of other packages that make RHEL.
>
> (I have to admit that I have no experience & very little knowledge of the
> UBI.  I find it hard to believe that one can get access to all RHEL
> packages through it; but I will assume one can if Rocky Linux is claiming
> that they can.)
>
> As for the 2nd method:  I also find it hard to believe that pay-as-you-go
> cloud users of RHEL are not presented with the same (or substantially
> similar) license agreement as a direct Red Hat customer.  My limited
> experience with RHEL in the cloud does not bear that out.  So I guess we
> will see.
>
>
> ===
> > The Suicide Attempt by Red Hat:
> > https://news.itsfoss.com/red-hat-fiasco/
> ===
>
> I enjoyed reading this opinion piece.  I appreciate the author disclosing
> that he uses Red Hat's Developer Subscription For Individuals and stating
> why he does not believe IBM was behind this act.  I also found his piece to
> be pretty balanced.
>
> That doesn't mean I agree with him, though.  :-)
>
> I note that in every question the author asks the reader (example:  "What
> did online tutorials use to teach about RHEL?") he answers, every time,
> with "CentOS" with the word "Stream" in strike-through.  The funny thing is
> that the answers to those questions *most certainly could be* "CentOS
> Stream"!
>
> I write that with all sincerity.  When I 1st obtained my Red Hat Certified
> Engineer (RHCE) certification, RHEL 6 was the new hotness and Red Hat did
> not have the free offerings that it does, today.  I used CentOS to study
> for my RHCE at home.  If the situation was the same, today, I would use
> CentOS Stream.
>
> RHEL minor releases come out ~6 months.  RHEL 9.2 is currently the
> latest.  That means the current CentOS Stream is what will be RHEL 9.3 in
> the fall.  CentOS Stream is not a "RHEL beta" and it carries the same
> binary compatibly and features (or lack thereof) within a major release
> number (in this example, "RHEL 9") as what the RHEL product does.
>
> The author shares his opinion that the lack of clones will decrease the
> number of people exposed to the RHEL ecosystem, thus there will be less
> people developing for RHEL and innovating with RHEL.  I thought the *exact
> same thing* in 2004 when Red Hat discontinued RHL in favor of RHEL.
>
> Red Hat suggested that RHL users not wanting to pay for RHEL should start
> using Fedora Linux.  I perceived Fedora as a unacceptable beta of RHEL,
> that it was nothing like RHEL and I didn't want to support Red Hat if they
> were abandoning the community like that.
>
> So, I used OpenSuSE for a few years.  I switched back after seeing:
>
> + how successful Red Hat was at growing the ecosystem -- gaining
>   partners like Intel, AMD, HP and Dell;
>
> + how they were still contributing to the upstream community and
>   everybody was benefiting;
>
> + how Red Hat was defending the community when Microsoft was claiming
>   that GNU/Linux users needed a license to use their patents.
>   (Something that Novell/SuSE supported by renewing a deal with
>   Microsoft for hundreds of millions of dollars.)
>
> This current controversy about Red Hat no longer going above & beyond the
> GPL by providing source code to the general public has, for me, similar
> shades of that 2004 controversy of discontinuing RHL for RHEL.  I did not
> think it at the time, but I now see that the Free & Open Source community
> benefited from that move.  I think we will all benefit from this 2023 move,
> too.
>
>
> Let's discuss this more at Wednesday's meeting!!!  (And any other topics
> that people want to bring up.)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iF0EARECAB0WIQQepgJdnfsiTmnUzg5yQaapRGpvkwUCZKIxogAKCRByQaapRGpv
> k02FAJ919e1VUszm5hWm9YBkoDn0QqwUhwCdFFbB4dNtL+QUKa+dBF2T7Y/CSRE=
> =eKt0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cinlug.org/pipermail/cinlug/attachments/20230702/995c7dd6/attachment-0001.htm>